No one is above the law, except...

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think I asked you not to. I was merely pointing out the fact you continue to post about a topic you claim not to care about. I think that's interesting.

Not really.

I'm curious.

It's pretty obvious when you decide to become curious about the activities of government -- it's when someone other than Republicans are there. You went eight full years without a whiff of curiosity.

They should have enforced the courts judgment. Whatever that was. What's the point of vacating a judgment you've won? The case was brought by the Justice Department.

What judgment was that? Did the judge hand down a sentence, or was that left up to the attorneys?

I think I said it was your characterization.

So?

Says you.

And it's true.

[Yonivore]

Not really.

I didn't say you thought it was interesting.

It's pretty obvious when you decide to become curious about the activities of government -- it's when someone other than Republicans are there. You went eight full years without a whiff of curiosity.

That's not true. I satisfied my curiosity on all the questions raised in this forum and elsewhere on the alleged wrongdoings of the Bush administration. That I reached a different conclusion than you doesn't make me incurious.

What judgment was that? Did the judge hand down a sentence, or was that left up to the attorneys?

I don't know, if you're curious go read up on it. There's a federal investigation going on so, I'm thinking there's a question to be answered about the Justice Department's actions in relationship to this case.

So?

You said it as if I hadn't just done so.

And it's true.

Again, says you.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't say you thought it was interesting.

I wasn't saying I thought it was interesting.

That's not true. I satisfied my curiosity on all the questions raised in this forum and elsewhere on the alleged wrongdoings of the Bush administration. That I reached a different conclusion than you doesn't make me incurious.

Of course -- your curiosity was jsut so much more easily satisfied during the Bush years since you were so biased in favor of him.

I don't know, if you're curious go read up on it.

But you're curious. Why don't you know? Sounds like you are merely satisfied with the innuendo at this point. No surprise.

There's a federal investigation going on so, I'm thinking there's a question to be answered about the Justice Department's actions in relationship to this case.

What question is that?

You said it as if I hadn't just done so.

No, I didn't.

Again, says you.

Again, I'm right.

[Yonivore]

I wasn't saying I thought it was interesting.

I know.

Of course -- your curiosity was jsut so much more easily satisfied during the Bush years since you were so biased in favor of him.

You don't know how easy it was or wasn't. But, it's true we disagree on almost every issue related to the Bush administration.

But you're curious. Why don't you know? Sounds like you are merely satisfied with the innuendo at this point. No surprise.

I'm more curious about what the federal investigation will reveal. I read an article sometime back that explained the judgment and what it meant for the Justice Department to vacate it and I questioned it then. Now that a federal investigator is involve, I'm curious again. I might actually get around to refreshing my memory on the particulars but, if you can't wait for me, I invite you to go educate yourself. That's all.

What question is that?

As best as I can tell, the question appears to be, why did the Justice Department give up a case they had already won?

No, I didn't.

I took it that way.

I said, "It's your characterization, not mine." and you responded to that sentence, [look down the thread if you like] with "It's my characterization,..." I was merely pointing out that I had already made that acknowledgment. Is there anything with which you won't quibble?

It's a minor point, belabor it if you like.

Again, I'm right.

Declarations don't make you anything.

[ChumpDumper]

I know.

Then why act like I was.

You don't know how easy it was or wasn't.

It's easy to tell it was very, very easy.

As best as I can tell, the question appears to be, why did the Justice Department give up a case they had already won?

It's possible there just wasn't much of a case against them in the first place.

I took it that way.

Well, you were wrong. Happens a lot.

Declarations don't make you anything.

But I'm right anyway.

[Yonivore]

Then why act like I was.

I didn't.

Look, if you're going to engage in these tedious line-by-line exchanges, you really should try to keep up with the dialog.

I said, "I don't think I asked you not to. I was merely pointing out the fact you continue to post about a topic you claim not to care about. I think that's interesting," to which you responded, "Not really," to which I said, "I didn't say you thought it was interesting," to which you replied, "I wasn't saying I thought it was interesting," to which I replied, "I know."

Really, if you can't keep up with your silly exchange exercises you should give up on them.

It's easy to tell it was very, very easy.

Okay...I can't argue with your perceptions. Have them.

It's possible there just wasn't much of a case against them in the first place.

You'd think they'd of said so. Instead they're stonewalling the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights whose made a formal inquiry into their reasons.

Well, you were wrong. Happens a lot.

I don't think so and I also believe a reasonable person would see where I could come to the conclusion as I. You parroted back "It's my characterization..." right after and in response to me saying, "It's your characterization." Seems like I had reason to point out that I had already acknowledged that.

But, again, you keep on keeping on if this is so important. Explain to me how I was wrong.

But I'm right anyway.

But, of course. In your mind, you're never wrong. At least I can't think of a time you've ever conceded a point.

[Yonivore]

Chump, you may be too young for the reference but...



...good night.

[TDMVPDPOY]

[Wild Cobra]

Chump, you may be too young for the reference but...



...good night.

LOL...

Chump may be too young, but I'm old enough I forget!

I remember the characters, but I forget the scene.

Was that the timeclock scene?

[LnGrrrR]

LOL...

Chump may be too young, but I'm old enough I forget!

I remember the characters, but I forget the scene.

Was that the timeclock scene?

Yup.

I forget the names though... Ralph and Sam? Ahh classic Looney Tunes. I've got to get some of those for my soon-to-be-here kid.

[Yonivore]

LOL...

Chump may be too young, but I'm old enough I forget!

I remember the characters, but I forget the scene.

Was that the timeclock scene?

Yep. I was punching out and putting our differences aside until ... well, the next time we punched in.

[Yonivore]

Yup.

I forget the names though... Ralph and Sam? Ahh classic Looney Tunes. I've got to get some of those for my soon-to-be-here kid.

You go, Dad. Be sure and expose the little booger to all the classics. Road Runner, Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig...etc...

And, for some reason, I think Ralph and Sam is correct.

[LnGrrrR]

You go, Dad. Be sure and expose the little booger to all the classics. Road Runner, Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig...etc...

And, for some reason, I think Ralph and Sam is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_and_Sheepdog

Holy crap I was right.

Why does my brain work this way? Why can I remember the most inane bit of information, yet have trouble remembering if I called a client or not? Argh.

[DarkReign]

Possession of marijuana.

Regardless of whose name is attached to "...DOJ has dropped charges", I am always happy.